If your definition of control is "the software/protocol can assert PTT" then 
all of the radios have remote control, because by sending data, they can all 
assert PTT.


The definition that I am going by is the ability to effectively operate the 
functions of the radio, turn it on, turn it off, change the channel, increase 
the volume, put it in scan mode, program the memories, switch between VFO and 
memory operation, see the current display information, you know, every feature 
of the radio except for the speaker, microphone, and PTT.

This level of control can be done with the ID-1 and the IC-91. It doesn't exist 
for the other radios.

Ed WA4YIH

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:04 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com; dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Radio Control Software Recommendations Sought





On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:04 -0400, "Woodrick, Ed"
<ewoodr...@ed-com.com<mailto:ewoodrick%40ed-com.com>> wrote:

I believe that the IC-91 and the ID-1 are the only radios that
allow for "remote control"

---

It's not really "control"... the software/protocol has no way to assert
PTT.

Also Dan (of D-RATS) fame hasn't been able to find a way to tell when
the rigs are receiving, but perhaps there's a way, since the "rig
display" mode of the RT Systems software does show signal strength and
LCD display components that might be a solid indication that the rig is
receiving a signal. Whether only the S-meter or a real "receiving a
digital signal" indication is present, is completely undocumented...
along with the rest of the protocol.

Also, since they're virtually identical, the IC-92AD should be included
in this list.

The other (mobile) rigs use different connectors for programming vs.
data, and probably have even less features.

Haven't seen anyone describe what the new 80 and 880 do or don't do, but
haven't seen any rig control documentation on those rigs, either.

Nate WY0X



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to